wildojinx
Wade Wilson
Posts: 26,815
Member is Online
|
Post by wildojinx on Dec 28, 2018 12:27:32 GMT -5
Also, the match shouldnt really have been a match at all, sting should have just given him a press slam, stinger splash, and scorpion death drop and end it like that. By making it an actual match you kind of kill the feeling, since the fans just wanted to see Hogan destroyed. It would have been like if Warrior and Honky had a competitive match at Summerslam 88.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 28, 2018 12:32:16 GMT -5
Can we not have people like yourself getting bent up over the discussion of what was good or bad in WCW here? Otherwise I'll misquote you and say you think all discussion FOR Hogan means you agree with racism I don't think me calling Bischoff what he is, which is in fact one of Hogan's enablers, is worth threatening me over. Hulk Hogan was one of the 10 most successful draws of all time and because of that he had earned the right to a creative control clause in his contract. Bischoff and all others had to abide by it. That does not make Eric Bischoff an enabler given that not doing so would have gotten WCW/Turner sued for breech of contract.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Dec 28, 2018 12:37:42 GMT -5
I don't think me calling Bischoff what he is, which is in fact one of Hogan's enablers, is worth threatening me over. Hulk Hogan was one of the 10 most successful draws of all time and because of that he had earned the right to a creative control clause in his contract. Bischoff and all others had to abide by it. That does not make Eric Bischoff an enabler given that not doing so would have gotten WCW/Turner sued for breech of contract. No one earned the right to what Hogan had in WCW.It was THAT ridiculous.Whoever gave the contract to him is the true enabler. Especially someone with Hogan's attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 28, 2018 12:39:35 GMT -5
Hulk Hogan was one of the 10 most successful draws of all time and because of that he had earned the right to a creative control clause in his contract. Bischoff and all others had to abide by it. That does not make Eric Bischoff an enabler given that not doing so would have gotten WCW/Turner sued for breech of contract. No one earned the right to what Hogan had in WCW.It was THAT ridiculous Especially someone with Hogan's attitude. But he did. All parties agreed to the terms of the contact. It's a factual statement that is not up for debate.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Dec 28, 2018 12:41:07 GMT -5
No one earned the right to what Hogan had in WCW.It was THAT ridiculous Especially someone with Hogan's attitude. But he did. All parties agreed to the terms of the contact. It's a factual statement that is not up for debate. Not debating that,I'm saying whoever gave him that contract literally enabled everything Hogan had done
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 28, 2018 12:44:46 GMT -5
But he did. All parties agreed to the terms of the contact. It's a factual statement that is not up for debate. Not debating that,I'm saying whoever gave him that contract literally enabled everything Hogan had done So hypothetically someone whose name and likeness has made millions for others should have little to no say in how their name or likeness is used?
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Dec 28, 2018 12:47:08 GMT -5
Not debating that,I'm saying whoever gave him that contract literally enabled everything Hogan had done So hypothetically someone whose name and likeness has made millions for others should have little to no say in how their name or likeness is used? Did you ever read Hogan contract?Besides having creative control is already silly,it is not protecting their name(you can always just keep the rights for your name and likeness) "While the contract granted the WCW rights to use Hogan’s name and image on promotional products, it explicitly allowed the Hulkster to independently use his name, image and likeness to promote “pasta, pasta restaurants, sandwiches [and] sun tan oil.".See this was fine,THIS is protecting your brand and likeness. . His contract went way beyond that. No wrestle,no matter how much he has made,eespecially someone know to be a politican should be able to choose when he loses. he could have made enough money to buy a country,doesnt matter. Long term it is an awful decision to give him control.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 28, 2018 12:53:30 GMT -5
So hypothetically someone whose name and likeness has made millions for others should have little to no say in how their name or likeness is used? Did you ever read Hogan contract?Besides having creative control is already silly,it is not protecting their name(you can always just keep the rights for your name and likeness) "While the contract granted the WCW rights to use Hogan’s name and image on promotional products, it explicitly allowed the Hulkster to independently use his name, image and likeness to promote “pasta, pasta restaurants, sandwiches [and] sun tan oil.".See this was fine,THIS is protecting your brand and likeness. . His contract went way beyond that. No wrestle,no matter how much he has made,eespecially someone know to be a politican should be able to choose when he loses. he could have made enough money to buy a country,doesnt matter. Long term it is an awful decision to give him control. Every major attraction in every territory ever has had influence on when and how they did the favor. Also those guys that kept working with Hogan and putting him over? I bet most didn't care because of all the money they made from working with him.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Dec 28, 2018 13:03:23 GMT -5
Did you ever read Hogan contract?Besides having creative control is already silly,it is not protecting their name(you can always just keep the rights for your name and likeness) "While the contract granted the WCW rights to use Hogan’s name and image on promotional products, it explicitly allowed the Hulkster to independently use his name, image and likeness to promote “pasta, pasta restaurants, sandwiches [and] sun tan oil.".See this was fine,THIS is protecting your brand and likeness. . His contract went way beyond that. No wrestle,no matter how much he has made,eespecially someone know to be a politican should be able to choose when he loses. he could have made enough money to buy a country,doesnt matter. Long term it is an awful decision to give him control. Every major attraction in every territory ever has had influence on when and how they did the favor. Also those guys that kept working with Hogan and putting him over? I bet most didn't care because of all the money they made from working with him. Alright i'm going to tune out now because that is jsut changing the goals each time.We are not going to reach at an agreement.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,572
|
Post by cjh on Dec 28, 2018 13:07:35 GMT -5
No, it's not inaccurate. Business didn't just not go down after Sting/Hogan, it got even better. I'm quite convinced through your replies here that you are in fact Eric Bischoff. Sorry, Sting/Hogan being an epic disaster is purely revisionist history. At worst, people were confused at the Nick Patrick deal, then forgot about it seconds later when Sting made his comeback, won, and the fans went nuts. If the audience held the finish against WCW that much, then WCW would not have been able to have the record setting ratings, attendance, and merchandise sales it enjoyed up until early-1999. Also, if it's hard to believe that things change seemingly overnight, WWE went from losing to Nitro by over a full ratings point to ending Nitro's winning streak in about 2 months even though Nitro's ratings were still growing, too. The same thing happened to WCW in early-1999, just in the opposite direction.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Dec 28, 2018 13:10:39 GMT -5
Can we not have people like yourself getting bent up over the discussion of what was good or bad in WCW here? Otherwise I'll misquote you and say you think all discussion FOR Hogan means you agree with racism I don't think me calling Bischoff what he is, which is in fact one of Hogan's enablers, is worth threatening me over. Apologies, i misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Dec 28, 2018 13:32:34 GMT -5
Kiddos if you want to be successful in the wrestling business, ask Eric Bischoff for advice then do the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 18:12:54 GMT -5
I'm quite convinced through your replies here that you are in fact Eric Bischoff. Sorry, Sting/Hogan being an epic disaster is purely revisionist history. At worst, people were confused at the Nick Patrick deal, then forgot about it seconds later when Sting made his comeback, won, and the fans went nuts. If the audience held the finish against WCW that much, then WCW would not have been able to have the record setting ratings, attendance, and merchandise sales it enjoyed up until early-1999. Also, if it's hard to believe that things change seemingly overnight, WWE went from losing to Nitro by over a full ratings point to ending Nitro's winning streak in about 2 months even though Nitro's ratings were still growing, too. The same thing happened to WCW in early-1999, just in the opposite direction. The ratings changed overnight. The go home show for Uncensored did a 4.4, the show after did a 4.3, and didn't significantly drop-off until late May. That's not a great argument for things changing overnight. And again, the gate at Spring Stampede the next month was phenomenal, and house house show attendance for Apr 1999 was almost identical to Apr 1998. The buyrate for SS was down 70k from Uncensored, but Uncensored was down 160k from Superbrawl. So none of these metrics are alarming, or indicative that people were so offended by the result of this show that they simply never watched, went to a show, or bought a PPV again. BUT, yes it could be something that they saw that in addition to other things led to them eventually leaving. Like Sting/Hogan. Like the Fingerpoke and the Havoc cutoff, which were both big time bait and switches of different varieties, which is a huge deal in consumer confidence. AGAIN, the WWF is an example of ratings NOT changing overnight, as their own talent have pointed out. The WWF didn't just come up with one great show that had everyone tuning into them. They built and built a couple hot angles, some provocative viewpoints, and coherent main event storylines for months before breaking through. The WWF at the time is the definition of building momentum gradually, as the Stone Cold arc proves. They strapped a rocketship to him in 1997, and 98 started paying dividends. The same way the NWO didn't pop big ratings in 1996, but did in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Dec 28, 2018 18:42:19 GMT -5
I don't think me calling Bischoff what he is, which is in fact one of Hogan's enablers, is worth threatening me over. Hulk Hogan was one of the 10 most successful draws of all time and because of that he had earned the right to a creative control clause in his contract. I disagree completely. Drawing power aside, giving him control of his booking essentially made him bigger than the promotion, and only a fool (Bish) would give away that power. Deserve has nothing to do with it, and the fact that it killed the promotion is proof of that.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,572
|
Post by cjh on Dec 28, 2018 18:45:48 GMT -5
Sorry, Sting/Hogan being an epic disaster is purely revisionist history. At worst, people were confused at the Nick Patrick deal, then forgot about it seconds later when Sting made his comeback, won, and the fans went nuts. If the audience held the finish against WCW that much, then WCW would not have been able to have the record setting ratings, attendance, and merchandise sales it enjoyed up until early-1999. Also, if it's hard to believe that things change seemingly overnight, WWE went from losing to Nitro by over a full ratings point to ending Nitro's winning streak in about 2 months even though Nitro's ratings were still growing, too. The same thing happened to WCW in early-1999, just in the opposite direction. The ratings changed overnight. The go home show for Uncensored did a 4.4, the show after did a 4.3, and didn't significantly drop-off until late May. That's not a great argument for things changing overnight. And again, the gate at Spring Stampede the next month was phenomenal, and house house show attendance for Apr 1999 was almost identical to Apr 1998. The buyrate for SS was down 70k from Uncensored, but Uncensored was down 160k from Superbrawl. So none of these metrics are alarming, or indicative that people were so offended by the result of this show that they simply never watched, went to a show, or bought a PPV again. BUT, yes it could be something that they saw that in addition to other things led to them eventually leaving. Like Sting/Hogan. Like the Fingerpoke and the Havoc cutoff, which were both big time bait and switches of different varieties, which is a huge deal in consumer confidence. AGAIN, the WWF is an example of ratings NOT changing overnight, as their own talent have pointed out. The WWF didn't just come up with one great show that had everyone tuning into them. They built and built a couple hot angles, some provocative viewpoints, and coherent main event storylines for months before breaking through. The WWF at the time is the definition of building momentum gradually, as the Stone Cold arc proves. They strapped a rocketship to him in 1997, and 98 started paying dividends. The same way the NWO didn't pop big ratings in 1996, but did in 1997.WCW beating WWE in the ratings every single week began during the lead up to Bash at the Beach 1996, so the impact of the Outsiders/NWO angle was felt almost as soon as it started. The WWF ratings did grow really fast in early-1998. As I said, two months before ending Nitro's winning streak, Nitro was beating Raw by over a full point. Over the next several weeks, Raw grew so much, it eventually beat Nitro without needing Nitro to decline to catch up. Whatever it was that caused it, the spring of 1999 was when WCW fans noticeably started abandoning the product: - Slamboree 1999 attendance had a huge drop compared to a Nitro in the same building 5 months earlier.
- July 1999 Georgia Dome Nitro was way down in attendance in comparison to the July 1998 and Jan. 1999 shows.
- Average house show attendance, according to The Death of WCW, dropped 25% from Q1 1999 to Q2 1999 (8,000 to 6,000).
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Dec 28, 2018 19:03:04 GMT -5
Hulk Hogan was one of the 10 most successful draws of all time and because of that he had earned the right to a creative control clause in his contract. I disagree completely. Drawing power aside, giving him control of his booking essentially made him bigger than the promotion, and only a fool (Bish) would give away that power. Deserve has nothing to do with it, and the fact that it killed the promotion is proof of that. Drawing power aside? That's really the only thing that matters. Even without it in his contract he would still have plenty of sway. You think Hogan didn't alter things in WWF? It was a reality WCW had to deal with. We can't hand wave it away. Rather we could fantasy book ways Terry Bollea could be pitched doing the favor.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 19:21:10 GMT -5
The ratings changed overnight. The go home show for Uncensored did a 4.4, the show after did a 4.3, and didn't significantly drop-off until late May. That's not a great argument for things changing overnight. And again, the gate at Spring Stampede the next month was phenomenal, and house house show attendance for Apr 1999 was almost identical to Apr 1998. The buyrate for SS was down 70k from Uncensored, but Uncensored was down 160k from Superbrawl. So none of these metrics are alarming, or indicative that people were so offended by the result of this show that they simply never watched, went to a show, or bought a PPV again. BUT, yes it could be something that they saw that in addition to other things led to them eventually leaving. Like Sting/Hogan. Like the Fingerpoke and the Havoc cutoff, which were both big time bait and switches of different varieties, which is a huge deal in consumer confidence. AGAIN, the WWF is an example of ratings NOT changing overnight, as their own talent have pointed out. The WWF didn't just come up with one great show that had everyone tuning into them. They built and built a couple hot angles, some provocative viewpoints, and coherent main event storylines for months before breaking through. The WWF at the time is the definition of building momentum gradually, as the Stone Cold arc proves. They strapped a rocketship to him in 1997, and 98 started paying dividends. The same way the NWO didn't pop big ratings in 1996, but did in 1997.WCW beating WWE in the ratings every single week began during the lead up to Bash at the Beach 1996, so the impact of the Outsiders/NWO angle was felt almost as soon as it started. The WWF ratings did grow really fast in early-1998. As I said, two months before ending Nitro's winning streak, Nitro was beating Raw by over a full point. Over the next several weeks, Raw grew so much, it eventually beat Nitro without needing Nitro to decline to catch up. Whatever it was that caused it, the spring of 1999 was when WCW fans noticeably started abandoning the product: - Slamboree 1999 attendance had a huge drop compared to a Nitro in the same building 5 months earlier.
- July 1999 Georgia Dome Nitro was way down in attendance in comparison to the July 1998 and Jan. 1999 shows.
- Average house show attendance, according to The Death of WCW, dropped 25% from Q1 1999 to Q2 1999 (8,000 to 6,000).
The week before Scott Hall even showed up, Nitro did a 3.1 and beat Raw. Up until that point, the year's ratings war score was 10 wins for Raw and 8 for WCW. After BATB, the following Nitro's ratings were 3.5, 3.4, 2.6, 3.1, and 3. Better ratings than they were doing, yes. Still not their best rating of that year up until that point. Yes, the Georgia Dome gate was down in July 1999, as well as the house show attendance in May onward of 1999. Neither of those happened around Uncensored. So while it may have been a factor, nothing happened overnight. You're looking too much at the what (the ratings) and not enough about the why (the lead-up and overall writing/booking). WWF's show was running downhill from early/mid-97 onward. WCW showed large cracks in their ability to book a main event, create new stars, utilize their existing stars, or deliver on very simple things starting in mid-1998. Nash got the book in 98 because Eric knew he was in over his head. In mid-99, those chickens came home to roost and the bottom dropped out on WCW. It wasn't just one show and people turned away. I know I'm not going to convince you, but it's very clear that is what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Dec 28, 2018 19:44:42 GMT -5
I disagree completely. Drawing power aside, giving him control of his booking essentially made him bigger than the promotion, and only a fool (Bish) would give away that power. Deserve has nothing to do with it, and the fact that it killed the promotion is proof of that. Drawing power aside? That's really the only thing that matters. Even without it in his contract he would still have plenty of sway. You think Hogan didn't alter things in WWF? It was a reality WCW had to deal with. We can't hand wave it away. Rather we could fantasy book ways Terry Bollea could be pitched doing the favor. I’m sure that Tom Cruise and Will Smith throw their weight around on movie sets too. That’s fine. But when the producers decide to tell them “you have final cut”, you may as well not even hire a director and let them run the show and book everything as a commercial for themselves, and that movie is likely to not perform well at all. Only a fool (Bish) would give someone that power. Trusting the star power of those involved to somehow carry the project just because of who they are would be completely asinine.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,572
|
Post by cjh on Dec 28, 2018 19:48:15 GMT -5
WCW beating WWE in the ratings every single week began during the lead up to Bash at the Beach 1996, so the impact of the Outsiders/NWO angle was felt almost as soon as it started. The WWF ratings did grow really fast in early-1998. As I said, two months before ending Nitro's winning streak, Nitro was beating Raw by over a full point. Over the next several weeks, Raw grew so much, it eventually beat Nitro without needing Nitro to decline to catch up. Whatever it was that caused it, the spring of 1999 was when WCW fans noticeably started abandoning the product: - Slamboree 1999 attendance had a huge drop compared to a Nitro in the same building 5 months earlier.
- July 1999 Georgia Dome Nitro was way down in attendance in comparison to the July 1998 and Jan. 1999 shows.
- Average house show attendance, according to The Death of WCW, dropped 25% from Q1 1999 to Q2 1999 (8,000 to 6,000).
The week before Scott Hall even showed up, Nitro did a 3.1 and beat Raw. Up until that point, the year's ratings war score was 10 wins for Raw and 8 for WCW. After BATB, the following Nitro's ratings were 3.5, 3.4, 2.6, 3.1, and 3. Better ratings than they were doing, yes. Still not their best rating of that year up until that point. Yes, the Georgia Dome gate was down in July 1999, as well as the house show attendance in May onward of 1999. Neither of those happened around Uncensored. So while it may have been a factor, nothing happened overnight. You're looking too much at the what (the ratings) and not enough about the why (the lead-up and overall writing/booking). WWF's show was running downhill from early/mid-97 onward. WCW showed large cracks in their ability to book a main event, create new stars, utilize their existing stars, or deliver on very simple things starting in mid-1998. Nash got the book in 98 because Eric knew he was in over his head. In mid-99, those chickens came home to roost and the bottom dropped out on WCW. It wasn't just one show and people turned away. I know I'm not going to convince you, but it's very clear that is what happened. Not literally overnight, but the decline in 1999 over a matter of a few months in the spring that continued until the end was staggering. With Sting/Hogan, a year after it happened, WCW was still setting record highs in ratings and was competitive with the WWF on PPV into early-1999 (Hogan/Flair did a better buyrate a week after Austin/McMahon).
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 28, 2018 20:31:47 GMT -5
The week before Scott Hall even showed up, Nitro did a 3.1 and beat Raw. Up until that point, the year's ratings war score was 10 wins for Raw and 8 for WCW. After BATB, the following Nitro's ratings were 3.5, 3.4, 2.6, 3.1, and 3. Better ratings than they were doing, yes. Still not their best rating of that year up until that point. Yes, the Georgia Dome gate was down in July 1999, as well as the house show attendance in May onward of 1999. Neither of those happened around Uncensored. So while it may have been a factor, nothing happened overnight. You're looking too much at the what (the ratings) and not enough about the why (the lead-up and overall writing/booking). WWF's show was running downhill from early/mid-97 onward. WCW showed large cracks in their ability to book a main event, create new stars, utilize their existing stars, or deliver on very simple things starting in mid-1998. Nash got the book in 98 because Eric knew he was in over his head. In mid-99, those chickens came home to roost and the bottom dropped out on WCW. It wasn't just one show and people turned away. I know I'm not going to convince you, but it's very clear that is what happened. Not literally overnight, but the decline in 1999 over a matter of a few months in the spring that continued until the end was staggering. With Sting/Hogan, a year after it happened, WCW was still setting record highs in ratings and was competitive with the WWF on PPV into early-1999 (Hogan/Flair did a better buyrate a week after Austin/McMahon). There is a disconnect here. I don't think Starrcade 97 is some beginning of the end for WCW that some believe it is. My only point to Starrcade is that people can be very disappointed with how an angle ended and it not singe-handedly bury a company. I think it was a lack of payoff, and you can't use the next year's profits to argue that the night as a standalone was better than it was quality-wise. I think only the Fingerpoke was intentionally egregious in that it gave the fans something Nitro was known for (PPV-quality big match-ups) and completely failed to deliver.....anything, really. Nash/Hogan had been building tension for about a year, had a history, were two of the biggest stars at that point (especially Nash, who people forget was white hot during the Wolfpac days), complete with pyro and Michael Buffer. And they just took a dump in the ring. Business fell between late-May and Semptember like a stone, and I think it was just a cumulative effect of the 9 months or so leading up to that. Their main event matches usually stunk, the bait-and-switches, Goldberg's shine wearing off, things just generally not making sense, terrible booking, wrestling trending back down in the mainstream, WWF's momentum. Everything inside and outside of the company was working against them maintaining their buzz.
|
|